Cars you hate

[XJ Dreamin']

Sure. Added to the 'it sucks' list: the new Nissan Xterra. It seems as though Land-Rover and Nissan are locked in a battle to the death to see not only how alike they can make their vehicles look, but also how ugly they can make them compared to the outgoing models.

I think automotive design is suffering from trying to read the current youth generation (is it still "X" or have they gotten too old already?)

Anyway, my theory is - I'm gonna really get slammed for this one - that the previous generations (50's, 60's, etc) have used up all of the cool fads (discounting some notable gafs along the way) and left the current youth with nothing new to call their own. The result is that the current generation is like a scifi monster that's absorbed too many personalities. It can't decide which one should dominate. Fads flash by so fast that nobody's bothering to even catalog them anymore. The auto designers are a gen or two older and have absolutely no clue what to do. Everything looks so weird to them that they've decided that weird is what's cool. The weirder, the cooler. On the other hand, marketing is an inherently conservative business. If somebody's already made something weird, copy that. Don't try to be original in weirdness if you can copy somebody else's weirdness.

 

[5-90]

OK - I'll see if I can stick to the original intent of this thread...

Anything FWD - what a pain in the a$$ to work on...

Anything Honda/Acura or similar - They're all riceboys out here, and I HATE riceboys!

Any oversize SUV owned by a family with one child. I had a neighbour with five kids and a Suburban - that makes sense. With one or no kids - you're just wasting fuel and driving my prices up.

Any so-called offroad "Yuppiewagen." I'm tired of yuppies, and most of them can't drive worth a damn. That, and I'm tired of dodging these yoyos while they're yapping on the phone and sipping their lattes...

Nearly anything OBD-II. I shouldn't need an EET degree to work on a car.

European imports - especially BMWs, Mercedes-Benzes, and Porsches. More yuppiewagens.

Nearly any new car body style - I don't like this "organic" look or whatever they're doing. Whatever look you were going for, you missed.

I don't trust a ford I didn't build...

Any lifted (over 6") washed, and waxed pickup. If you're not going to take it offroad, why lift it? While we're at it, why lift it far enough for ME to drive under?

Hummer anything - they're all too damn big to be useful.

Anything with independent drive axle suspension. Too many moving parts.

Anything "sub-compact" - they pull too far into parking spaces and make me think there's an empty one when there isn't. Maybe I should just start pushing them out of the way...

Oh - and anything with too many "safety features." Safety lies between the ears, and I never did like the idea of replacing skill with technology. The idea behind learning to drive is to learn to drive anything - if all you know how to drive has ABS, "Speed sensitive" steering, and all that other rot, you shouldn't be on the road.


Did I forget anything?

5-90

 

[skierbri10]

Any lifted (over 6") washed, and waxed pickup. If you're not going to take it offroad, why lift it? While we're at it, why lift it far enough for ME to drive under?


5-90

There is no way you could stand Hawaii then. By the time I escape from this state, I will have pulled all of my hair out looking at all these stupid Toyota's and other trucks that are lifted 6" or more with those stupid little knobbies. God I hate those fools.

 

[skierbri10]

By the way are any dorks doing this stuff near you???

 

[xuv-this]

why are you making me do this??? THESE ARE FACTS

1) No power, yes, but 'very little brakes' is a function of poor braking system design, not whether the wheels are driven or not. It should in fact be *easier* to brake non-driven wheels as the brakes shouldn't have to fight against the drivetrain as well as physics to slow the wheels.

i say again. it is basic physics that a greater percentage of the weight is in the front on a FWD car, and a greater percentage is transferred to the front, because that is where the majority of the weight that is being stopped on braking . your point on "fight against the drivetrain" is annuled by the fact that 1) front wheel drive cars would (dur) have the same problem, only on the front wheels. 2) it doesn't matter anyway. because in both manual and auto the wheels and gearing are traveling faster than the motor anyway, because either the clutch or t.c. is already unlocked. 3)that factory brakes already would obviously have this factored in. if given FWD car X is easier to brake and has a lesser stopping distance than RWD car Y, it is because of better front brakes and a greater ratio of <square inches of rubber on the ground> to <lbs weight of vehicle>

2) A fallacy. Specific vehicles with poor packaging aside, if this were true then FWD would've been abandoned decades ago. RWD does *not* automatically mean superior accessibility to engine, suspension, steering, or other components.

i said harder to work on, and that is what i meant. for example: oil filters, diff. work (yeah. try to CHANGE SEALS on an auto transaxle), changing struts, some assorted engine sensors REQUIRE special tools to get to them because they are so hard to get to, etc. and stuff is especially harder to get to on the bottem. crossmembers, brackets, etc. all load bearing, have to come out, and be torqued on reinstallation. now please don't be a jack@ss and say that "well, technically everything is supposed to be torqued, even on RWD" my point is that the bracket systems are complicated, and are longer and more tedious to work on. point blank. hell, i've seen posts here about other vehicles that were hard to work on, so obviously complicated designs exist. this is a well known fact. not a fallacy. refer to 5-90's recent post for a specific example.

3) Only if the vehicle has not been designed with balanced weight distribution in mind. Also, in a front-engined, RWD vehicle, the engine's still up front, along with the transmission - still a recipe for being nose-heavy.

in rwd the axles, trannie, diff are not BETWEEN THE FRONT WHEELS they are distributed along the whole car. yes rwd is slightly nose heavy. otherwise mid-engine sportscars would not exist. but my point is that FWD is CONSIDERABLY more nose heavy by weight percentage of the vehicle.

1)Okay, and can you take the same turn as fast as (or faster than) her if you're driving her Mazda? Much of this comes down to driver ability: my Jeep will outcorner a Lotus if the Lotus driver is a buffoon.

ACTUALLY i drive her car often. and have tested this several times. like i said it is simple. you just cannot power FWD through a turn. if you want to compare a jeep to a lotus, i'll compare a FERRARRI ENZO to your lotus. come on, i know a wise man once said "there is no stupid question" but please.

It is not true that you cannot control the rear in an FWD car with the throttle. Using bags of sand to weight it down - assuming that the rear suspension geometry is suitable for the vehicle - would actually be dangerous, given that if it did fishtail you'd be really buggered for getting it back under control. And given how auto manufacturers dislike being sued, even the most vile-handling FWD car is set up from the factory to *NOT* swap ends when provoked unless the driver is *seriously* overcooking it.

no you cannot directly control it. you your self said that the rear had no power.... and the weight described is within factory payload specs of most FWD vehicles. and yes it would be dangerous. but with RWD, it can be controlled.

Besides, have you never fishtailed a RWD car, or gone into a four-wheel-drift in one? Again, it all comes down to the individual vehicle, and each vehicle will break away differently and under different conditions, RWD, FWD, AWD, front-, rear-, or mid-engined.

yes. i have. my first car was a oldsmobile "88" 81 year model. i preferred to call it "the tank" if that was FWD i would be dead right now. nuff said?

Please, don't equate ricers with people who know what they're doing. We all know they're morons; using them to prove a point really doesn't strengthen your argument.

my legitimate mistake. i went a bit overboard.

I'll stay away from the NHRA and SCCA argument, since I really don't follow either one enough to make a valid comment. However, I would point out that the British Touring Car Championship - running for, oh, I don't know how long anymore - has been dominated by FWD cars for years, many of them running at speeds in excess of 200mph. Sure, they're radically different from the cars on the showroom floors (though retaining FWD), but so are most RWD NASCAR machines.

sounds like the english version of nascar. i would bet my xj that a scca championship set-up corvette would beat the crap out of those on the turns oh, yeah, and in the straights.

Okay, but this really boils down to a 4-cylinder vs. 8-cylinder argument, and has very little to do with FWD vs. RWD. You mention having control of all four wheels: in neither a FWD or RWD scenario do you have that. I'm really at a loss here as for what you're trying to say.

WTF <sarcastic> yeah for some reason that new blown 502 i ordered won't fit into a mazda.... the point is i am trying to say anything you can do to a 4 banger FWD you can do to a 8 cyl rwd and it will be better. they can be made faster and handle better. you will have more control. obviously you don't have much experience on ice. rwd gives power to the rear and direction to the front. hence a way to use ALL FOUR WHEELS to control the car.

Most of the weight in any vehicle is transferred to the front under braking, assuming straight-ahead travel. Again, proper weight distribution, proper brakes for the amount of mass being decelerated, and proper steering and suspension geometry count for a lot here. Having spent a good portion of my driving life in a place that routinely got ice and snow in the winter, I'll say that neither FWD or RWD is better than the other in that situation provided that either one is correctly set up.

<sarcastic>yeah, you're right. if i'm trying to brake at this stopsign near my house, which turns out up a hill, and on a turn, and 1 front wheel of my magical physics defying FWD car slips while i am trying to gain momentum up that hill, around that icy turn, and i try to power into (let very slightly off the gas and turn into the the direction the car wants to roll) let it grab back in and slowly power out to recover, do you mean to tell me that when i try to turn back into it, the combined required power and altered direction on that same wheel will not cause it to slip again? and when i slow down on a turn, and the rear slips and wants to swap ends that i can magically control it without breaking out on the front and losing steering control? but oh, right. you know so much about this.... BTW i am referring to normal country roads. not city streets.

OK, I'll grant you that in a FWD vehicle, you may have to go up a snowy hill in reverse. I've had to do it myself, so I guess ya got me on that one.

holy crap i've never been that desperate. i can see no logical way that could ever be safe, but hey, i put a rollcage in my suv. talk about overkill....

Again, this comes down to suspension setup and how much weight it allows to shift under motion. By your logic, under braking a FWD vehicle should be superior whereas a RWD one should be inferior. Having towed various loads with both, it really doesn't matter a damn - you just deal with it.

no. my logic obeys the laws of physics. yours doesn't. the max reccomended towed load for fwd cars is considerably less than comparable rwd cars. and on a wet road, it makes all the difference in the world.

As for the Ridgeline (which I have driven) there is currently no 2WD model available (source) - all, even the base models, are AWD. Sorry, but this makes me less confident that you understand the subject matter at hand.

so is this because i was correct? i clearly made no mention of it being rwd or 2wd. my point was to use it as an example that
fwd has no place in safe towing.

I was with you right up to "a RWD car can always...". It just doesn't stand on its own, and much of that depends largely on the intended purpose of the vehicle.

yes it does stand on it's own. the FACTS support it. and yes it does intend on the designed purpose of the vehicle. for example why is there AWD? because fwd just doesn't cut it on wet/icy raods.

Here's the problem: what you refer to as 'inferior crap' is strictly based on your opinion. Simply by virtue of the fact that you hold an opinion doesn't make it right, particularly as relates to the points you've raised here: the one thing in all of this that you never mentioned is that both FWD and RWD have applications where one is better-suited than the other. Whether or not you like one or the other is immaterial; they both do what they do well enough for their intended purposes. Really, this is like listening to the 'your OS sucks' arguments the twits at work choose to inflict on the rest of us.

yes that was my opinion. fwd is all around more purpose intended. and less versatile. so it is indeed inferior. which in my opinion sucks.you're only right in that fwd is better suited....for economically more efficient comfortable cars that get you from point a to point b with good gas mileage.

I guess the best way to put this to bed would be to say that a mid-engined, AWD vehicle would be the pinnacle of perfect handling - but even that's got so many variables that it doesn't hold water. This is a perfect case of horses for courses.

this would be put to bed if you hadn't started this b.s.

 

[Rob Mayercik]

As for the Ridgeline (which I have driven) there is currently no 2WD model available (source) - all, even the base models, are AWD. Sorry, but this makes me less confident that you understand the subject matter at hand.

so is this because i was correct? i clearly made no mention of it being rwd or 2wd. my point was to use it as an example that
fwd has no place in safe towing.

Actually, I think that this has to do with the following statement of yours:

(how much anybody wanna bet me that the new honda ridgeline truck is FWD)

To me you are making the assumption that the Ridgeline is FWD (which, the last time I checked, is a form of 2WD). Casm pointed out that all Ridgelines are AWD.

How exactly does an AWD vehicle stand as an example of the unsuitability of FWD in towing situations? Frankly, I don't get it.

If I were to follow what appears to be your reasoning, then would I be correct to say that FWD is unsuitable for towing because of the (AWD) Subaru WRX)?

Can't we all just not get along peacefully?

Rob

P.S. BTW, skierbri10, that kinda looks cool, though obviously someone obviously had too much free time on their hands. Do they actually let that thing on the golf course?

 

[Ludakris]

Since this thread is back up..and I missed it first time 'round:

Car - Why

Acura - Japanese

Aston Martin - British

Audi - German (or something Euro: I forget)

Avanti - stupid name

Bentley - British

BMW - German

Buick - GM

Cadillac - GM

Chevrolet - GM

Chrysler - since Iococca

Dodge - since Iococca

Ferrari - Italian

Ford - Ford

GMC - GM

Honda - Japanese

Hummer - duh

Hyundai - Japanese

Infiniti - stupid name

International Harvester - stick to tractors

Isuzu - Japanese

Jaguar - British

Kia - where is this thing from? no matter..

Lamborghini - Italian

Land Rover - British

Lexus - isn't that the name of the living ship on that stupid SciFi series?

Lincoln - Ford

Lotus - really stupid name. British isn't it?

Maserati - Italian

Mazda - Japanese (or is it Ford now)

Mercedes-Benz - German

Mercury - Ford

Mitsubishi - Japanese

Morgan - British

Nissan - Japanese

Plymouth - since Iococca

Pontiac - GM

Porsche - German

Saab - Sweedish or something (personal experience here. sister had one)

Saturn - another stupid name (really just a GM)

Scion - please

Smart - Holy Crap! Mark my words, DC is going to do this to the Jeep one day! Oh, yeah. They already have.

Subaru - Japanese (I think..)

Suzuki - Japanese

Toyota - Japanese

Volkswagen - German (lot of personal experience here)

Volvo - Sweedish (my Grandfather was Sweedish, but please - cars?)

Who did I miss?

Hi, I drive an oxymoron (2wd jeep..hello?) and hate everything..

 

[Ludakris]

all of these bad cars are great though.. it lets you know what kind of person is driving it.. if everyone had great cars, you would be surprised if someone was driving slow, didnt signal, is on the phone, cut you off, or is just annoying. But because of the wide variety of cars, when there is a suzuki trying to merge, you know to give them some room.. if a chrysler mini van starts to brake, you know something crazy is about to happen.. there are two lanes of traffic at a light, one has an H2, the other a toyota camry.. you know to go behind the toyota, because the self absorbed pri@% in the H2 is on the phone and wont know when the light turns. The toyota is just interested in point A to B transportation in relative comfort......

 

[Lawn Cher']

By the way are any dorks doing this stuff near you???

Several of my neighbors have golf carts, some of them 4wd and/or lifted. But AFAIK they use them for hunting.

 

[xuv-this]

To me you are making the assumption that the Ridgeline is FWD (which, the last time I checked, is a form of 2WD). Casm pointed out that all Ridgelines are AWD.

sorry i was unclear. what i meant was that i was asking if anybody wanted to make a bet against me that the ridgeline is fwd. so my point was that obviously they wouldn't because front wheel drive is not suitable for a tow vehicle. and even honda, one of the formost fwd makers knew that when they designed the ridgline.

How exactly does an AWD vehicle stand as an example of the unsuitability of FWD in towing situations? Frankly, I don't get it.

hopefully i explained it above clearly enough.

Can't we all just not get along peacefully?

i wish we could. if i had known that casm would make such an ordeal and argue with everything i said, i would not have written that. i just wanted to help people understand why fwd and rwd are so different.

 

[Lawn Cher']

if i had known that casm would make such an ordeal and argue with everything i said...

You don't know Casm very well, do you?

 

[xuv-this]

i'm getting to, lol.

 

[casm]

Had I known my replies would apparently be taken personally by you, I would've ignored the original post to begin with. Further, I'm not even going to bother with getting into trying to debate what you've posted here; the thread's been hijacked long enough as it is and I really don't have the time right now to go back and forth on this while I'm at work. Therefore:

why are you making me do this???

I'm not making you do squat. You're choosing to reply to my replies to your message. You, much as anyone else here, are as free to ignore this thread as you please.

this would be put to bed if you hadn't started this b.s.

Sorry, but I wasn't the one who decided to make a post starting off with (and I quote): "OK I WILL NOW CLARIFY ONCE AND FOR ALL WHY FRONT WHEEL DRIVE IS INFERIOR (oh let me count the ways)". Neither you, I, nor anyone else is the capable of making such ridiculous claims. Just because you don't like something doesn't necessarily mean that it's inferior.

If you don't like the responses your posts are garnering, I'd suggest either a) not posting, b) posting in a way that doesn't infer that you are some sort of authority on <insert subject here> followed by getting all butt-hurt when others hold differing views, or c) carry on as you have been and learn to quietly live with the consequences of making statements in front of the public to which they might well respond in a way that you don't necessarily want to hear.

Really, this particular debate has gone on far enough at this point. If you've got something further to say to me, take it to PMs and we'll discuss it somewhere more appropriate. If, however, you're looking for a nice big public flame war that everyone can enjoy (ooh, the drama!), you're not going to get it from me.

 

[Lawn Cher']

If, however, you're looking for a nice big public flame war that everyone can enjoy (ooh, the drama!), you're not going to get it from me.

Aw nuts! Now what am I gonna do? Web-wheeling is gonna suck!

 

[XJ Dreamin']

Hi, I drive an oxymoron (2wd jeep..hello?) and hate everything..

Not everything. Just everything listed. I love my Jeep. This thread is about cars I hate. The list was only partial but the fact that "Jeep" is not included should indicate that I love Jeep (including my 2WD, even though I wish it were 4WD). Love and hate are not logical. That's why I tried to call a halt to the "details" debate. It was distracting us from the free flow of auto-bigotry. There is nothing contradictory about hate. I hate what I hate and love what I love. No oxymoron there.

Anyway, my 2WD Jeep is better than anything FWD. FWD sucks.

 

[XJ Dreamin']

all of these bad cars are great though.. it lets you know what kind of person is driving it.. if everyone had great cars, you would be surprised if someone was driving slow, didnt signal, is on the phone, cut you off, or is just annoying. But because of the wide variety of cars, when there is a suzuki trying to merge, you know to give them some room.. if a chrysler mini van starts to brake, you know something crazy is about to happen.. there are two lanes of traffic at a light, one has an H2, the other a toyota camry.. you know to go behind the toyota, because the self absorbed pri@% in the H2 is on the phone and wont know when the light turns. The toyota is just interested in point A to B transportation in relative comfort......

You just made me realize that of all the times someone has made me wounder "WTF are you doing?" that driver was never driving a Jeep! And there are a lot of Jeeps here. Even the Grand Cherokees around here act sane. Everybody else is either friggin' crazy or has no where that they need to be in the next 2 or 3 hours!

 

[Ludakris]

Sure. Added to the 'it sucks' list: the new Nissan Xterra. It seems as though Land-Rover and Nissan are locked in a battle to the death to see not only how alike they can make their vehicles look, but also how ugly they can make them compared to the outgoing models.

Is it just a coincidence that a woman designed the "bold" look of the Frontier... I am guessing she had her hand in the Xterra as well... it will look tuff the uglier we make it... oh, and give it a huge name...Armada.. to strike fear in lesser cars...
Good Times...

 

[xuv-this]

Had I known my replies would apparently be taken personally by you, I would've ignored the original post to begin with.

i just got frustrated because i was trying to end the debate about f vs. rwd by stating facts about both, and you came along and drew out what i thought would be short by debating things that did not need debating.

Sorry, but I wasn't the one who decided to make a post starting off with (and I quote): "OK I WILL NOW CLARIFY ONCE AND FOR ALL WHY FRONT WHEEL DRIVE IS INFERIOR (oh let me count the ways)". Neither you, I, nor anyone else is the capable of making such ridiculous claims. Just because you don't like something doesn't necessarily mean that it's inferior.

i don't like <not hate> it because it is all-around inferior.

Really, this particular debate has gone on far enough at this point. If you've got something further to say to me, take it to PMs and we'll discuss it somewhere more appropriate. If, however, you're looking for a nice big public flame war that everyone can enjoy (ooh, the drama!), you're not going to get it from me.

i would prefer to say this in front everyone, so nobody gets the wrong idea.
fwd is inferior in several applications. i clearly stated them, and how. as i have said over and over, this is based on proven facts, laws of physics, and common sense. casm has succeded in debating of all three. yes, i threw my opinion in here and there, debating that was not what "threw me through a loop".if i had known that he prefers to argue everything and misrepresent my points, i would have started a dedicated thread. so i am sorry everybody else for hijacking this thread. my only intent was to help people understand. not start a "flame war"

 

[bajacalal]

Hey my sis is a big wig for Honda, and I always tell her that Honda's have zero personality. For me a car has to have personality, it has to make me want to drive it. The same goes for Toyota's and Nissan's. In fact I know more people with broken Japanese cars than American. So really, reliability is a non-issue now-a-days. I am not a Ford fan, but I can stand GM cars eventhough they are ugly. At least they aren't plain. I like what DC is producing though and I like VW's and Porsche and Italian sports cars. I don't really car about saving gas either, so your point is fruitless.

Thats my point exactly. Most American cars are plain, no personality. I like Camaros and unique cars but can you easily describe the difference between a taurus, neon, lumina, impala, regal, lincoln, cadillac, or any of the big suvs that are pretty much the same. American trucks of course are great, Dodge, GM, Ford are not the same trucks. We have consistently done that well, probably because the CAFE and various other enconomy/safety regulations are not applied like they are to US cars, since trucks are still defined as a work vehicle.

If you are talking about what has happened post 2004, I agree, Detriot has picked up the slack once again. The new Mustang, Crossfire, GTO, that weird Chevy 50's truck, and Hemi cars. These are all top of the line flagship models though. But, go back 2 years and you get boring US sedans, few exceptions. These cars, are all cool, top of the line flagship vehicles. The US economy (i.e. most out there) cars are still boring. And the flagships Detroit has produced are just retakes of old models. Cool cars but nothing new they just went full circle. The Dodge Magnum, looks fun to drive but why is it different from my grandmas 70something V8 stationwagon she had forever. This is why the US makers can't compete except in (trucks/suv, obviously) modern muscle or economy only in "red state" markets where import anything is unpopular. The Focus I can't understand, sure its fun (in a go-cart way) to drive but crappy & problematic.

Japanese cars have brand identity. Mazda is rotary or rwd sedans/coupes. Subaru, all wheel drive with airplane (flat) engines useful for inclement weather. Toyota is reliable, practical (Matrix) sporty-efficient(they pioneered just in time manufacturing). Mitsu has put turbos on lots of 4cyl models (the SRT-4 owes its life to Mitsu). Nissan is (in the US) affordable quality. Honda I agree, least personality of any car, designed to blend in. The Japanese did not offer topothe line stuff here. Subaru wrx, the 350z, the RX8, Lancer Evos, their makers were wary of offering those here because they saw the US makers offering cheap crap rental cars models or a good pricier car that guzzles gas. It took them time to realize people might want something in between.

Statistically, Ford has at least 3 times as many recalls, defects per model as anyone. Chevy makes good engines but ugly cars, I like DC the best but still that neon, looks so different from fords. The Japanese have consistently produced low defect vehicles, high resale prices, regardless of your friends Sentra breaking down. Remember I like American trucks and Jeep but if I want a car that looks good, runs a long time, gets good mileage, fast, I can't think of a US car that does that.

:soapbox:
While I am standing here, we are not discussing rice boys or other drivers. I love Jap sportscars but I can't stand the dorks who also do. BMW is hard to work on, but don't criticize BMW unless you have ever driven a windy road in one, their owners driving habits are irritating but the car is awesome.

 

[skierbri10]

Thats my point exactly. Most American cars are plain, no personality. I like Camaros and unique cars but can you easily describe the difference between a taurus, neon, lumina, impala, regal, lincoln, cadillac, or any of the big suvs that are pretty much the same. American trucks of course are great, Dodge, GM, Ford are not the same trucks. We have consistently done that well, probably because the CAFE and various other enconomy/safety regulations are not applied like they are to US cars, since trucks are still defined as a work vehicle.

If you are talking about what has happened post 2004, I agree, Detriot has picked up the slack once again. The new Mustang, Crossfire, GTO, that weird Chevy 50's truck, and Hemi cars. These are all top of the line flagship models though. But, go back 2 years and you get boring US sedans, few exceptions. These cars, are all cool, top of the line flagship vehicles. The US economy (i.e. most out there) cars are still boring. And the flagships Detroit has produced are just retakes of old models. Cool cars but nothing new they just went full circle. The Dodge Magnum, looks fun to drive but why is it different from my grandmas 70something V8 stationwagon she had forever. This is why the US makers can't compete except in (trucks/suv, obviously) modern muscle or economy only in "red state" markets where import anything is unpopular. The Focus I can't understand, sure its fun (in a go-cart way) to drive but crappy & problematic.

Japanese cars have brand identity. Mazda is rotary or rwd sedans/coupes. Subaru, all wheel drive with airplane (flat) engines useful for inclement weather. Toyota is reliable, practical (Matrix) sporty-efficient(they pioneered just in time manufacturing). Mitsu has put turbos on lots of 4cyl models (the SRT-4 owes its life to Mitsu). Nissan is (in the US) affordable quality. Honda I agree, least personality of any car, designed to blend in. The Japanese did not offer topothe line stuff here. Subaru wrx, the 350z, the RX8, Lancer Evos, their makers were wary of offering those here because they saw the US makers offering cheap crap rental cars models or a good pricier car that guzzles gas. It took them time to realize people might want something in between.

Statistically, Ford has at least 3 times as many recalls, defects per model as anyone. Chevy makes good engines but ugly cars, I like DC the best but still that neon, looks so different from fords. The Japanese have consistently produced low defect vehicles, high resale prices, regardless of your friends Sentra breaking down. Remember I like American trucks and Jeep but if I want a car that looks good, runs a long time, gets good mileage, fast, I can't think of a US car that does that.

:soapbox:
While I am standing here, we are not discussing rice boys or other drivers. I love Jap sportscars but I can't stand the dorks who also do. BMW is hard to work on, but don't criticize BMW unless you have ever driven a windy road in one, their owners driving habits are irritating but the car is awesome.

Have you even opened your eyes the last few year? The relaibilty issue is a non-issue. They are all so close now it really doesn't matter. Except for Nissan, which is the least reliable of all cars available in the US. The only thing you can say that is worthwhile is that Japanese cars have a higher resale. That is true mostly. Look my sis and bro-in-law worked for DC before they were DC and sis works for Honda now and Bro works for Toyota. They tell me the same thing, both companies are trying to convince people to buy thier cars, and they can't use the reliablity factor anymore. For the first time in forever, Toyota has to offer incentives. ANd go to any Honda dealer and you will get a somewhat good deal on just about any model. Geeze, Honda even had to produce a truck. Their Element is a disaster and the Civic isn't selling as much. People are realizing that they can get a great looking car from FOrd, DC and GM and get good gas milage and good power. The only cars that are out pacing American vehicles are the hybrids. But they don't get as good of milage per gallon as the stickers claim. It isn't thier fault but te way the cars are tested by the EPA. IN fact they don't get much better than a normal model. The Civic for example. Toyota's are not as reliable as they once were, and they have cheaply made parts, from the brakes to the crankshaft. Similar to the US Gov. who takes bids from the cheapest suppliers. I am not saying every American cars is great, and really I don't know any Japanese car I would buy, but Japan better watch thier backs. They think they are ahead, but it doesn't look like that anymore.